Below is an informative piece by my friend Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan about the awful decision by the LDS Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to support legislation granting legal protections based on homosexuality. Gary of AFA-Michigan writes:

Astoundingly, both the Massachusetts and California supreme courts expressly and specifically cited their states’ identical “sexual orientation” laws regarding employment and housing as a legal justification for their rulings legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage.” That indisputable fact alone renders the Church spokesman’s claim that its endorsement of the “sexual orientation” ordinance poses no threat to marriage to be utter nonsense, especially since the Church’s new position will certainly boost homosexual activists’ ongoing efforts in the Utah Legislature to enact an identical state law.

U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, reaffirmed the threat such “sexual orientation” laws pose to marriage in commenting on the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), legislation which would add “sexual orientation” to federal civil rights laws regarding employment. If enacted, Boehner said, ENDA would “put activist judges in the position of imposing same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states. Simply by using ENDA as the basis of their decisions – just as state Supreme Courts have done with state-level ENDA laws in the past – liberal judges will be empowered under this legislation to single-handedly undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country. I’m disappointed that the Majority turned back a straightforward proposal offered by House Republicans to protect state and federal marriage laws from being overturned, modified, or restricted by activist judges as a result of this deeply flawed legislation.” http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=78178

Such laws have also been used to discriminate against and punish individuals and businesses who refuse to approve of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

It is difficult to believe that LDS officials could be so grossly ignorant of the demonstrably proven threat such laws pose to marriage and to the religious freedoms of the individual, special exemptions for “religious organizations” and the government notwithstanding. It’s further astounding that church officials would endorse a law banning “discrimination” based on “gender identity,” rendering it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a man because he (1) dresses as and claims to believe he’s a woman; and (2) demands on that basis to use the women’s restroom at work.

It’s notable in contrast that the Catholic Church refuses to endorse forcing such “sexual orientation” laws on the rest of society just because homosexual activists are politically calculating enough to (at least temporarily) exempt churches. [Editor’s Note: in certain areas such as Maine, Catholic bishops or leaders have endorsed homosexual activist laws against the teachings of their Church; such backing in heavily Catholic states usually makes the difference in passage of pro-homosexual legislation.]
From a Vatican directive instructing Catholic bishops to oppose so-called “sexual orientation” laws: “Where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.htm

We deeply sympathize with the shock that will no doubt be felt by many members of the LDS Church who do understand the implications of so-called “sexual orientation” laws and have expended great effort to oppose them and to educate others.

For example…
Meridian Magazine / The Place Where Latter-day Saints Gather: “Of course, the problem here is that the term ‘sexual orientation’ has no innate meaning (in contrast with ‘race’, which does) and no historic or community value (such as ‘religion’) and would require the Utah State Legislature to fabricate its definition. In other words, adding the term ‘sexual orientation’ to Utah law, as demanded (by homosexual activists), would give lawyers standing to attack employers and property owners.” http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/090204six.html
United Famlies International: “We adamantly oppose the UNHRC sexual orientation provisions for three reasons: 1. Attempts to legalize same sex marriage around the world would be substantially strengthened if homosexual behavior becomes an internationally recognized ‘human right.'” http://meridianmagazine.com/familywatch/040319newsletter.html